Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[ferd burfle]

Lying about glow discharges in images you cannot comprehend is not good either, Sol88. What you see is pixel saturation from bright sources, e.g. surface ice.

Sol put a grinning smiley at the end of his comment so I think we must assume it was an attempt at humor. Sol wouldn't present a zoomed-in, cropped image with no attribution and claim seriously it's evidence.

ferd

 

[Reality Check]

Sol put a grinning smiley at the end of his comment so I think we must assume it was an attempt at humor. Sol wouldn't present a zoomed-in, cropped image with no attribution and claim seriously it's evidence.

ferd

Unfortunately Sol88's track record shows that he would do "present a zoomed-in, cropped image with no attribution and claim seriously it's evidence", ferd burfle (with or without a grinning smiley). Look at the previous ridiculous attempt to turn a boulder into a crater.

The last 5 years of this thread probably have other "I see electric comet fantasies in images" posts from Sol88.

 

[tusenfem]

Sol put a grinning smiley at the end of his comment so I think we must assume it was an attempt at humor. Sol wouldn't present a zoomed-in, cropped image with no attribution and claim seriously it's evidence.

ferd

Yeah, so many smileys, no need to take anything Soll88 says seriously, nor the effort to actually respond anymore.

 

[Haig]

Still no quantification, I see.

"I'm seeing more of a sprite pattern in the jet with the densest part a bit away from the surface"

It looks like a bunny!

Tell me, Haig, how does Rossim infer density from that JPEG picture? Well, he can't, and he doesn't. He's just making **** up. He's got no idea what the density is, he's got no idea if it actually conflicts with the standard model, and just as importantly, he's got no idea if it conflicts with the ECH. Why? Because (again), just like everyone else on the ECH side, he can't quantify anything. Ever.

What "standard comet model" Ziggurat ? The Electric Comet 67P has left it in tatters

Rosetta reveals a complex comet

It’s time to stop thinking of comets as dirty snowballs. The Rosetta spacecraft’s first look at comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko shows a diverse, complex world, shaped by eruptions and erosion, that may hint at what the solar system was like 4.6 billion years ago.

A panoply of textures and structures shows that comet 67P is not a loose collection of ice and dust, the prevailing image of comets for decades.

“Rosetta has blown the dirty snowball idea out of the water,” says Nicolas Thomas, a planetary scientist at the University of Bern in Switzerland and member of the Rosetta team.

Previous missions had already hinted that comets were more complex than that. But the Rosetta mission, the first to orbit a comet and follow it as it approaches the sun, shows a patchwork of terrains weathered by blowing dust and gas eruptions.

The "Impossible" Dunes of Comet 67P | Space News

Published on 22 Feb 2015
The comet 67P has provided an avalanche of astonishing discoveries that may puzzle scientists for years to come. And one problem that will simply not go away is the seemingly impossible dunes, or dune-like ripples at the comet’s neck. At its first observation, the feature drew virtual gasps of disbelief from scientists and science media. More recent, close-up images of the “impossible” dunes have only deepened the mystery. How does the electric universe explaining this baffling feature?

Watch this space in the coming months for more astonishing discoveries that may is certain to puzzle mainstream scientists

 

[tusenfem]

most important part repeated anb bolded:

Previous missions had already hinted that comets were more complex than that.

(yawn)
being an ec proponent must be so boring without any new discoveries and/or surprises

 

[ferd burfle]

Haig, quoting ScienceNews:

It’s time to stop thinking of comets as dirty snowballs.

Haig, please retire this dishonest canard. You know full well the comet scientists posting in this thread have stipulated on a number of occasions that this model is outdated. To keep repeating this strawman after they have done so amounts to a lie.

Of course, the ech folks want to play this both ways. They'll throw up the canard and then in the next breath, when the real scientists present the latest model, say "look, look, they changed their model, they must not know what they're talking about!". All the while, still not presenting any real evidence of their own.

ferd

 

[Ziggurat]

What "standard comet model" Ziggurat ?

The model that most people working in the field actually use.

A panoply of textures and structures shows that comet 67P is not a loose collection of ice and dust, the prevailing image of comets for decades.

“Rosetta has blown the dirty snowball idea out of the water,” says Nicolas Thomas, a planetary scientist at the University of Bern in Switzerland and member of the Rosetta team.

I see you're still trying to do science by press release. Yes, the "dirty snowball" image was the prevailing image of comets for decades. But that period of decades didn't just end, it ended quite some time ago. Rosetta doesn't finally reveal that this old model was wrong, it merely confirms what we already knew, which is that it's more complex than that. There's a bit of self-puffery in that quote, but it's far less significant than you seem to believe.

So all you've really done is prove (again) your own ignorance of the topic. And you also still have nothing quantitative from the ECH side. Nor will you ever, because they're all cranks, every single one of them. That's my model of ECH proponents. It's a scientific model which is quite falsifiable. But I'm confident that you won't falsify it.

 

[Haig]

Haig, please retire this dishonest canard. You know full well the comet scientists posting in this thread have stipulated on a number of occasions that this model is outdated. To keep repeating this strawman after they have done so amounts to a lie.

Of course, the ech folks want to play this both ways. They'll throw up the canard and then in the next breath, when the real scientists present the latest model, say "look, look, they changed their model, they must not know what they're talking about!". All the while, still not presenting any real evidence of their own.

ferd

ferd it's not dishonest and it's not a story, most of mainstream media and scientists are still using it and so it's fair to point out it's many failings.

The "real" scientists are a little confused, it would seem. Care to give a clear concise version of the latest mainstream comet model hypothesis ?

The model that most people working in the field actually use.

And that would be what, exactly ? I'm sure tusenfem can help you if your stuck!

I see you're still trying to do science by press release. Yes, the "dirty snowball" image was the prevailing image of comets for decades. But that period of decades didn't just end, it ended quite some time ago. Rosetta doesn't finally reveal that this old model was wrong, it merely confirms what we already knew, which is that it's more complex than that. There's a bit of self-puffery in that quote, but it's far less significant than you seem to believe.

This was an actually a recent quote. "Nicolas Thomas, a planetary scientist at the University of Bern in Switzerland and member of the Rosetta team"

Are you saying he doesn't know what he's talking about ?

Maybe I was having a little fun

So all you've really done is prove (again) your own ignorance of the topic. And you also still have nothing quantitative from the ECH side. Nor will you ever, because they're all cranks, every single one of them. That's my model of ECH proponents. It's a scientific model which is quite falsifiable. But I'm confident that you won't falsify it.

Sure I can, it's just another of your straw men, obviously falsified. What good did the hundreds of peer reviewed quantitative papers do the "dirty snowball idea"

The Electric Comet hypothesis has longevity and fits the facts

 

[Ziggurat]

This was an actually a recent quote.

Yes, I know. But the simplistic "dirty snowball" model is not recent. Mainstream comet science has progressed past that some time ago. The quote is just PR, it's not science.

Sure I can, it's just another of your straw men, obviously falsified. What good did the hundreds of peer reviewed quantitative papers do the "dirty snowball idea"

First, it's not a straw man, it's my own argument that ECH proponents are all cranks. You can't straw man yourself. Second, none of the papers you refer to are for the ECH. Disproving 1950's models of comets doesn't prove the ECH, or even quantify it.

The Electric Comet hypothesis has longevity and fits the facts

It doesn't fit the facts, and if longevity of a theory was a virtue, then we should all be creationists. Plus, of course, still no quantification.

 

[Haig]

Yes, I know. But the simplistic "dirty snowball" model is not recent.

Yet, it still gets dragged out !

Mainstream comet science has progressed past that some time ago.

Progressed to what Ziggurat ? Care to pin a tail on that donkey ?

The quote is just PR, it's not science.

So why do it ? Don't the tax paying public deserve to know what the latest mainstream comet science actually is ?

First, it's not a straw man, it's my own argument that ECH proponents are all cranks. You can't straw man yourself.

It's a load of rubbish and you know it. Your setting up your opponents as something they are not, that's a straw man.

Second, none of the papers you refer to are for the ECH. Disproving 1950's models of comets doesn't prove the ECH, or even quantify it.

Your hobby horse is "qualitative" I just showed you it's a flawed argument. Get the data first before going that far

It doesn't fit the facts, and if longevity of a theory was a virtue, then we should all be creationists. Plus, of course, still no quantification.

Round and round we go ... roll on the summer and the very active Electric Comet 67P

Jets on Electric Comet 67P

 

[Ziggurat]

Yet, it still gets dragged out !

Yeah, by you.

Progressed to what Ziggurat ? Care to pin a tail on that donkey ?

It's been sufficiently detailed in this thread already.

So why do it ?

Because it sounds good.

Don't the tax paying public deserve to know what the latest mainstream comet science actually is ?

The public doesn't really care about the latest mainstream comet science, but more importantly, science reporters are not generally capable of conveying such information anyways. If you want the actual science, you don't go to the press reports.

It's a load of rubbish and you know it. Your setting up your opponents as something they are not, that's a straw man.

No. You do not understand the terminology. A straw man is when you make a false representation of your opponent's argument. I'm making a claim about ECH proponents themselves. This is not a "straw man".

But that's pedantry. The more important issue is whether or not my claim is correct. You say that it is not. But you cannot provide evidence that it is not. Evidence that would disprove my claim is rather easy to specify: quantitative models from ECH proponents. Such modeling is standard fare in legitimate science. Yet it is completely absent from the ECH.

Your hobby horse is "qualitative"

No, it's not. In fact, your own recent claim about all those quantitative papers in peer reviewed journals contradicts this claim.

Round and round we go ... roll on the summer and the very active Electric Comet 67P

Still nothing quantitative. But I am amused to see the name Michael Mozina pop up. He used to be a regular here, had some rather strange notions about the sun being an iron shell, it was all quite silly.

Jets on Electric Comet 67P

It looks like a bunny!

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Yet, it still gets dragged out !


Progressed to what Ziggurat ? Care to pin a tail on that donkey ?

So why do it ? Don't the tax paying public deserve to know what the latest mainstream comet science actually is ?


It's a load of rubbish and you know it. Your setting up your opponents as something they are not, that's a straw man.


Your hobby horse is "qualitative" I just showed you it's a flawed argument. Get the data first before going that far



Round and round we go ... roll on the summer and the very active Electric Comet 67P

Jets on Electric Comet 67P

Can you tell us please what specific features of those pictures are indicative of electrical activity and mutually incomparable with the mainstream explanation? Don't be afraid to get technical, I can take it.

What the images look like to me is plumes of particles of some kind exiting the comet at low kinetic energy and gradually diffusing as they move farther away from source points. Please explain how I'm wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

What "standard comet model" Ziggurat ?

We have
* the insanity of a Google search, Haig!
* the electric comet delusion
* ignorance about science (what a surprise ).
Puzzling observations are good. They allow scientists to explain the real world using actual physics.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig still believes in the Thunderbolts ignorance, delusions and lies

The Electric Comet hypothesis has longevity and fits the facts ]

Sorry, Haig, but that is a lie.
There is no "Electric Comet hypothesis". There is the base delusion that comets were blasted from planets and the delusional conclusions from that, e.g. that comets are rocks despite their measured density.
The "Electric Comet hypothesis" fits no facts about comets because all the Thunderbolts authors have are fantasies based on their ignorance of physics.
]The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site and videos
The "Electric Comet hypothesis" is basically a decade old from the Thunderbolts authors ! Unless you really want to start with the Velikovskian delusions (1950's) or the Jurgen fairy stories published in his journal (1970s?).

 

[Reality Check]

Jets on Electric Comet 67P

Here we go again with the idiocy of a Google search as if it was science, Haig !

 

[tusenfem]

ferd it's not dishonest and it's not a story, most of mainstream media and scientists are still using it and so it's fair to point out it's many failings.

The "real" scientists are a little confused, it would seem. Care to give a clear concise version of the latest mainstream comet model hypothesis ?

Want to know everything about mainstream comets, knowledge before Rosetta? Then read Comets II, eds. Festou, Keller & Weaver.

Unfortunately for Haig this book does not come in press release format.

And yes it is dishonest, because the EC crowd keeps on insisting that mainstream still sees a dirty snowball where actually in your own quote, Haig, Nick Thomas also says:

Previous missions had already hinted that comets were more complex than that.

But hey, who cares about such small details?

... snip
Sure I can, it's just another of your straw men, obviously falsified. What good did the hundreds of peer reviewed quantitative papers do the "dirty snowball idea"

The Electric Comet hypothesis has longevity and fits the facts

Please link to an actual published paper by the EC crowd, that would maybe strengthen your babbling.

Searching the pdf of the Comets II book, I notice that there are 5 mentions of "dirty snowball" and they are all in the "history sections" of a few papers, indicating that this was the idea of Whipple in the late 1950s.

But hey, why bother about what mainstream is really saying in its scientific papers, when you can cherry pick from press releases?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The Electric Comet hypothesis has longevity and fits the facts

Seems to me that those pushing it claim it fits every fact they come across even when some are mutually exclusive.

 

[dasmiller]

Seems to me that those pushing it claim it fits every fact they come across even when some are mutually exclusive.

That's the power of EC: whatever you observe can be interpreted to be consistent with your retroactive predictions.

Smooth surface on a comet? That's what you'd expect because EDM would destroy any outcroppings!
Rough surface on a comet? That's you'd expect because it's rock!

No water vapor? That's what you'd expect because it's rock dust!
Water vapor? That's you'd expect because solar hydrogen is reacting with comet oxygen!

Bright pixels? That's what you'd expect, it's EDM!
No bright pixels? That's what you'd expect because there wasn't an EDM happening at just that instant.

Jets combine into one big jet? That's what you'd expect because of double layers!
Jets diverge? That's what you'd expect because the particles are still charged!

High measured density? That's what you'd expect because it's rock!
Low measured density? That's what you'd expect because the net charge messes up the density measurement!

Comet goes quiet at perihelion? That's what you'd expect because the charge has equalized!
Comet is most active at perihelion? That's what you'd expect because the charge takes longer to equalize!
Comet activity is similar during inbound and outbound legs despite what must be wildly different charge states? That's what you'd expect because (some bizarre sun-charge-plasma words)!


Meanwhile, in the EC version of mainstream theory:

Smooth surface on a comet? Aha! The dirty snowball theory is wrong because the comet would have exposed dirt and it wouldn't be smooth!
Rough surface on a comet? Aha! The dirty snowball theory is wrong because the comet would have a smooth surface due to all the melting!

No water vapor? Aha! It can't be a dirty snowball, then!
Water vapor? Aha! It still can't be a dirty snowball because of (some bizarre rationale involving the sun's corona)

Bright pixels? Aha! Dirty snowball doesn't predict any bright pixels!
No bright pixels? Stuck pixels, transients, etc, should be causing some bright pixels regardless of the subject, so they're hiding data, and they wouldn't be hiding data if it supported dirty snowball!

Jets combine? Aha! Dirty snowball must be wrong, because there's no reason that sublimation jets from a dirty snowball would combine!
Jets diverge? Aha! Dirty snowball must be wrong, because on Earth, if you boil water in several pans, the steam all goes the same direction, so subliming ice on a comet should cause jets that all go the same direction!

High measured density? Aha! Dirty snowball predicts low density.
Low measured density? Aha! They have no good way of measuring density, so they're simply making up data to support their discredited dirty snowball theory, those ignorant money-grubbing hypocrites who're willing to sacrifice any shred of scientific integrity to cling to unscientific dogma established by the big-science priesthood. They're probably socially awkward and kick dogs, too.

Comet goes quiet at perihelion? Aha! Dirty snowball is wrong because it says the comet should stay active at perihelion.
Comet is most active at perihelion? Aha! Dirty snowball is wrong because (some bizarre misconception involving solar wind).

round and round we go . . .

 

[Matthew Cline]

So why do it ? Don't the tax paying public deserve to know what the latest mainstream comet science actually is ?

Do you think that scientists are letting down the public by failing to ride herd on the PR people?

 

[Reality Check]

Do you think that scientists are letting down the public by failing to ride herd on the PR people?

Actually Haig's statement is just wrong. He quotes from a news article about the latest mainstream comet science:
Rosetta reveals a complex comet (January 22, 2015)
and then claims that it does not contain the latest mainstream comet science !

What is really happening is that Haig has no idea what an idea is .
So he thinks that the phrase "dirty snowball idea" is referring to the scientific model of comets as being made of ice and dust. But the phrase is referring to the description of comets as "dirty snowballs" dating from the 1950's and out of date since at least Deep Impact on Tempel 1. Comets are more complex than that. So a new description is needed. Maybe "dirty icy snow/dirt balls"?